If two pronunciations have vowels from different phonemes, then the broad-phonetic transcriptions of those two pronunciations should use symbols corresponding to the appropriate phonemes. From this paragraph it sounds like what you're

If two pronunciations have vowels from different phonemes, then the broad-phonetic transcriptions of those two pronunciations should use symbols corresponding to the appropriate phonemes. From this paragraph it sounds like what you're

If two pronunciations have vowels from different phonemes, then the broad-phonetic transcriptions of those two pronunciations should use symbols corresponding to the appropriate phonemes. From this paragraph it sounds like what you're

Dena Jo and others want a way other than ASCII IPA to represent pronunciation. I have objected to ad hoc transcriptions because there's no way to pin down what the symbols stand for. It has occurred to me that we have a ready-made system

Has this changed over my lifetime? Id est, have dic'ers merely thrown in the towel, recognizing the frustrating tendency of the masses to "reek" all over the place? Or has it always been this way? It has 'always' been /ri:k/,

el3.net... If I were going to use the word "Bolivarian," I'd ... would make an accent on the first "i" seem strange. The common American pronunciation of Bolivar is with stress on the first and last syllables. The correct

example of Whoa. "Was" is pronounced by me and presumably by you ... happens to be a sort of phonemic respelling of "was"). Well, this brings us back to what I was saying about phonetic spelling sometimes being mistaken for eye

As long as the speech of the speaker in question ... "wuz" and "lissen," we're talking about anotherexample of phonetic spelling. Whoa. "Was" is pronounced by me and presumably by you like "wuz", but

As long as the speech of the speaker in question is not represented with such spellings as "wuz" and "lissen," we're talking about another example of phonetic spelling. Whoa. "Was" is pronounced by me and